↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tiotropium versus long‐acting beta‐agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
268 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Tiotropium versus long‐acting beta‐agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009157.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jimmy Chong, Charlotta Karner, Phillippa Poole

Abstract

Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with LABAs, including some that have evaluated recently introduced LABAs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 268 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 260 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 14%
Student > Master 38 14%
Other 30 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Other 63 24%
Unknown 53 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 6%
Psychology 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 57 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,814,776
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,733
of 13,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,270
of 188,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 188,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.